Something I’ve noticed. In comments on cases of animal cruelty, people react with much greater anger than in cases of cruelty to humans.
I'm of the mind that if, poking a hole into an unborn baby's skull, sans anesthesia, and sucking its brains out is good enough for innocent babies, then it should surely be good enough for convicted murderers....
It would be entertaining (in the sickest of ways) to propose such a method of execution and have the baby-murderers try to explain why it's OK for the innocent and not for the truly vile.
I’ve noticed actress Wendy Malik who is very prominent in anti-animal cruelty ads is also a big abortion on demand proponent. I wonder if the contradiction ever occurs to her?
I recently made the same distinction on another thread some time ago. I was insulted because I made the connection as is done here in the original article. One Freeper’s response was “Don’t be an idiot. Idiots can only process one thought at a time. Can you only process one thought at a time?”
The whole pro-abortion rationale is built on lies and contradictions.
When they are glaringly obvious, as in this instance, we should point out the contradiction. Usually, there is a forum or comment section following articles—use them.
I’ve noticed that abortion advocates are not afraid to post their bilge in public places. No matter how egregious the particular practice under discussion is, they are there to gloat and celebrate the fact that another innocent baby died for no reason.
Every pro-life person needs to be unafraid to counter this bilge. A contradiction such as this—where someone who is trumpeting how much he cares about the suffering of animals then displays his utter disregard for babies subjected to horrific pain for no reason—is just begging to be highlighted.
Maybe we could fool them into changing their minds, if we all had bumper stickers that read, “The ASPCF says, ‘Be Kind To Fetuses. Prevent Fetal Cruelty’”
Perhaps we just need to approach them on a different level.